COP31 and New Alliances in an Age of Geopolitical Fragmentation
This is the sixth piece in a series on the political economy of climate finance. Previous pieces examined the geopolitical origins of the finance gap, why blended finance fails to deliver, the plumbing problems ahead of COP31, the philosophical anatomy of systemic failure, and the technocratic threat to climate governance.
This piece looks at how the ground itself is shifting.
The relatively stable international environment that made the 2015 Paris Agreement possible is long gone. Today, the Russia-Ukraine war, rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific, and conflicts across the Middle East directly shape climate diplomacy.
Consider the current situation: The US has struck Iran, and Iran is now hitting American bases across the Arabian Peninsula. In response, Iran has announced a complete ban on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—traffic has dropped to zero. Oil prices have surged past $90 a barrel. Meanwhile, Yemen’s attacks on Saudi Arabia threaten the Bab-el-Mandeb, the gateway to the Suez Canal.
These chokepoints don’t just threaten energy supplies—they disrupt global supply chains, fertilizer shipments, and food security. Countries at war naturally prioritize survival over climate. And when trade routes close, fossil fuel dependency doesn’t decline—it deepens.
This is the ground on which COP31’s Türkiye-Australia partnership must operate—a new diplomatic model emerging from this crisis. Two countries that faced each other at Gallipoli a century ago now share the management of climate negotiations. Türkiye hosts, Australia leverages its Pacific connections as negotiation chair. This creative solution distributes a burden no single country could carry alone, aiming to breathe life into the multilateral system.
At the same time, “coalitions of the willing” are multiplying outside the formal COP process. Bilateral deals like the India-Germany Green Hydrogen Corridor pursue narrower but more actionable projects rather than waiting for global consensus. This approach offers speed but risks excluding smaller, more vulnerable nations.
India’s position in Bonn signals a new era: developing countries are making clear they cannot commit to more ambitious targets without finance and technology transfer. The concept of “justice” is now a geopolitical reality on the table.
COP31 stands at a crossroads. On one side, the Türkiye-Australia effort to revive multilateralism. On the other, geopolitical tensions pushing countries toward narrower, self-interested alliances. The real question: will these initiatives remain mere “coalitions”, or will they lay the foundations for a truly inclusive and binding global climate regime?
The answer will determine not just COP31, but the fate of climate governance for the next decade.
